Re: Best Record in Baseball

[Soul]

1985

 

...which is exactly why people shouldn't be creating threads entitled "Best Record in Baseball!!"

 

Argh!!

[CuseCubFan69]

1985

 

...which is exactly why people shouldn't be creating threads entitled "Best Record in Baseball!!"

 

Argh!!

 

Didn't the Brewers get off to a start like this last year?

[Soul]

1985

 

...which is exactly why people shouldn't be creating threads entitled "Best Record in Baseball!!"

 

Argh!!

 

Didn't the Brewers get off to a start like this last year?

 

RAR! 8-)

[Garwilly]

1985

 

...which is exactly why people shouldn't be creating threads entitled "Best Record in Baseball!!"

 

Argh!!

 

Right, whatever.

 

As of this moment, the Cubs have the best record in baseball. Something worth noting. It is not intended to be a predictive commentary, jusy a notation.

[Bull]

1985

 

Looking at the Cubs schedule that year is just so depressing.

I remember that year really well. Incredible start and it looked like the Cubs were going to steamroll through the season. Then one pitcher went on the DL. Then another. And another. And another. Then the entire starting rotation was on the DL at the same time.

 

tough to manage through that.

I remember that year too. I really thought the Cubs were going to win back-to-back division titles until the bottom dropped out. The pitching situation seemed similar to 2006, with one major difference. In 2006 the Cubs had legitimate pitching prospects that were called up earlier than they otherwise would have been, but I think that experience helped some of them (such as Marmol and Marshall) last year. In 1985, however, they were starting AA-quality pitchers who never pitched in the majors after that year (anybody remember the legendary Steve Engel, Johnny Abrego, and Derek Botelho?).

 

Yes, some of us remember..... but we're trying real hard to forget, eh? :wink:

 

Was that the year of the bad Mayonaisse?

[JeffH]

THE CUBS HAVE THE BEST RECORD IN BASEBALL

 

Might want to be on the lookout for these dudes:

 

Coming soon

[bcl412]

THE CUBS HAVE THE BEST RECORD IN BASEBALL

 

Might want to be on the lookout for these dudes:

 

Coming soon

 

That sounds about right

[shnsajax]

I personally blame today's loss on this thread :-).

 

Hopefully they can go 5-3 in their next 8 to make it to 20-10. I can live with that.

[rawaction]

I personally blame today's loss on this thread :-).

 

Hopefully they can go 5-3 in their next 8 to make it to 20-10. I can live with that.

 

Well that would mean the Cubs get swept by Washington this weekend....because they are gonna sweep the Brewers and Cards to start May.

[Ender]

1985

 

...which is exactly why people shouldn't be creating threads entitled "Best Record in Baseball!!"

 

Argh!!

 

Didn't the Brewers get off to a start like this last year?

 

 

Yep, only they didn't have nearly as many guys overproducing as the Cubs do this year. Almost every single player(other than LH starters of course) is above their career best line.

[Andy]

1985

 

...which is exactly why people shouldn't be creating threads entitled "Best Record in Baseball!!"

 

Argh!!

 

Didn't the Brewers get off to a start like this last year?

 

 

Yep, only they didn't have nearly as many guys overproducing as the Cubs do this year. Almost every single player(other than LH starters of course) is above their career best line.

As were the Brewers last year. I fail to see your point.

[bukie]

The only players I would reasonably expect to come down a bunch are DeRosa, Theriot, Cedeno and Dempster.

 

Johnson has already come down a bit the last couple days, Cedeno is a lot better than his 2006 season but he's likely not that good.

 

Soto, Fukudome and Pie are largely unknown commodities. Soto is likely to come down some, but who knows how much. Pie is actually likely to go up quite a bit.

 

Fontenot and Murton are really underplaying what they really should be.

 

Zambrano's big problem was always walks. If he's actually figured something out, he really is as good as he's pitching. If it's just a fluke, the walks will come up.

 

Marquis right now is not pitching very well, he's just been fortunate that it hasn't really affected his ERA.

 

Hill, Lilly, Wuertz and Howry are much better than they've pitched thus far.

 

Lee right now is right at his career best level (from 2005) and Ramirez is slightly above thanks to an increased patience which may or may not be fluky.

 

Soriano is far below expected production and not even in the lineup right now.

 

And the notion that the Brewers were somehow not overperforming as much at the start of the season last year is laughable.

[Ender]

The Brewers weren't overperforming as a team last April, they just won most of their close games and played against a lot of bad teams. A bit different scenario. April was their lowest scoring month. The pitching was right in line with the other months other than August where it completely collapsed. Their hot month was June when they went 17-9 and scored 42 more runs than they allowed.

[98navigator]

The difference in the Cubs start this year and the Brewers early run in 2007 is that the Cubs were under-performing their pythagorean win/loss record by several games. My contention last season, was that the Cubs were going to start making up ground because of their slow start (i.e. they lost an inordinate number of one-run games in the first month of the season which, coupled with the Brewers hot start, caused them to fall behind in the standings). However, their extended winning streak in June and July, and eventual division championship, did not completely reconcile their slow start; the Cubs ended the season, at 85-77, two games below projection. For the record, the Brewers final record of 83-79 was spot on.

 

The 15-7 2008 Cubs have not been completely outperforming as a team and there should not be an expectation that they will stop winning all of a sudden. They are one game above their projected pythagorean of 14-8. Let's keep in mind that PECOTA projects the Cubs to win an NL high 95 games which is five games better than the next closest divisional rival. Of course, that doesn't mean that they can't underachieve...

 

BTW, the Brewers are also exceeding their pythag of 12-10 by one game. Not surprisingly, the Cardinals 14-9 record is as predicted considering their schedule thus far. The Pirates are the only other NLC team exceeding Pythag by one game (the other two are one game worse than projections).

 

No matter how you look at it, the Cubs are where they should be at this point of the season; leading the division with the second best record in the League.

[chuckywang]

I think that the Pythagorean W-L statistic is overrated. I have yet to see any reason why that "should" be a team's W-L record based on mathematical reasoning.

 

It seems like Bill James thought, "Hey, this random calculation based on the runs a team scores and runs a team allows always comes pretty close to a team's actual W-L record. It must mean something."

[98navigator]

I think that the Pythagorean W-L statistic is overrated. I have yet to see any reason why that "should" be a team's W-L record based on mathematical reasoning.

 

It seems like Bill James thought, "Hey, this random calculation based on the runs a team scores and runs a team allows always comes pretty close to a team's actual W-L record. It must mean something."

 

OK, I disagree but you're entitled to your opinion.

[TruffleShuffle]

I think that the Pythagorean W-L statistic is overrated. I have yet to see any reason why that "should" be a team's W-L record based on mathematical reasoning.

 

It seems like Bill James thought, "Hey, this random calculation based on the runs a team scores and runs a team allows always comes pretty close to a team's actual W-L record. It must mean something."

 

it's a better predictor of future performance than the overall W/L record. the yankees and cubs were very unlucky early on last year with respect to their pythagorean records, and their second-half performances confirmed that they were good teams that were just running short on luck in the first half.

[David]

lol you should put Ronny's picture in green.

[CubinNY]

I think that the Pythagorean W-L statistic is overrated. I have yet to see any reason why that "should" be a team's W-L record based on mathematical reasoning.

 

It seems like Bill James thought, "Hey, this random calculation based on the runs a team scores and runs a team allows always comes pretty close to a team's actual W-L record. It must mean something."

Clearly you do not understand what Pyth. record means then. I will say that it's not meant to be predictive of future performance though. In a small data set (i.e., beginning of the season) it may be a very inaccurate method to determine "over" or "under" performing. However, over the course of 162 games Pyth record correlates very well to actual record most of the time. So much so that people can reasonably conclude that if a team wins more games or loses more games than their Pyth. record suggests, they "over" or "under" performed.

 

Here's a study if you're interested or just bored.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0509/0509698v4.pdf

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are more ways for a team to over- and under-perform than just Pythagorean Wins. That is tool that measures one specific type of deviation: run distribiution. There are others.

[Ender]

I think that the Pythagorean W-L statistic is overrated. I have yet to see any reason why that "should" be a team's W-L record based on mathematical reasoning.

 

It seems like Bill James thought, "Hey, this random calculation based on the runs a team scores and runs a team allows always comes pretty close to a team's actual W-L record. It must mean something."

 

 

I tend to agree but at the same time it is still useful to a degree. I like the W3 stat more since it looks at what your team has done at a more basic level than just runs scored and allowed.

 

Right now the W3-L3 in the central looks like

 

Cubs - 12.8 - 10.2

Reds - 12.4 - 11.6

Brewers - 11.9 - 11.1

Cardinals 12.1 - 11.9

Astros 11.1 - 12.9

Pirates 8.1 - 14.8

[sneakypower]

come september we're really going to rue that 1/5 of a loss

[Jehrico]

We need to lock this thread and ban all future posters who make any new similar threads.

[Roast]

I blame this thread for losing to the nationals.

[CubmanPi]

We need to lock this thread and ban all future posters who make any new similar threads.